Once upon a time, I loved SCSI. (Was: Help! Is this kernel or hardwareproblem?)

[Bill McGonigle]

On Nov 28, 2005, at 21:34, Ben Scott wrote:

>   I mean like needing a special screw driver and a special case
> cracking tool to open the original compact Macs.

Torx?  Putty knife?

>   I mean like requiring "APPLE" to be preset in the hard drive 
> identification.
>   I mean like suing others for coping "their" "look-and-feel".

Just so we know we're complaining about 1987-era stuff, under 
since-ousted leadership.

>   I mean like using their own odd ball connectors for serial ports,

RS-422?

> Ethernet ports

AUI, RJ-45, or BNC?

>   I mean like not even being compatible with their own expansion slot
> designs from model to model.

So, PDS->NuBus->PCI?  Is evolution the complaint or standards 
convergence?

>   I mean like suing anyone who even comes close to touching their
> precious iTunes and it's Digital Restrictions Management.

DRM sucks, but reverse engineering it is illegal.  All turn towards DC 
and 'salute'.

>   I mean like refusing to document the interfaces to the iPod.

ben_points++

> Sure, it benefits
> everybody, and that's great, but it isn't like Apple was motivated by
> some overwhelming spirit of altruism.

No, but a good application of game theory.

> AFAIK, Apple didn't publish
> source to any of the tons of code they put on top of BSD to make Mac
> OS X what it is.

With the exception of the WindowServer and applications, most of it is 
open source.  The multicast DNS stack, the process launcher, the RTSP 
server, the KHTML rework that Nokia's adopting, the preferences 
frameworks, etc.  List here: 
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/  You can have a complete 
Darwin OS running X11 using all open source that feels like a bit-nicer 
BSD.

>   Ah, the ever popular "other companies suck too" defense.  ;-)

Yes, but sometimes you have to buy something and linux doesn't fit 
every need (yet).  The choice now is Apple, Sun, SCO, or Microsoft.  
Now, say you want a vendor-supported wireless driver.  You have to 
chose between Apple and Microsoft.  The boogyman is apparent.

>   The *point* was that if Apple hasn't been so proprietary about
> Firewire, there's a good chance the question of how interesting USB is
> would be solely academic.  USB was simply Intel's NIH reaction to
> Firewire.  Firewire was clearly superior technologically, and had more
> of an established presense.  But Apple wanted to "own" Firewire.  So
> when Intel offered an "open" alternative, everybody jumped on board
> with USB.

They were willing to license it to anybody for $0.25 a port.  Sony, for 
instance, did this (and Apple was pig-headed about the trademark so 
they called it i.Link).  And, of course, Adaptec so I have to pay $50 
to put firewire into my linux boxes instead of $1 if the mobo came with 
'em (my newest mobo does).  Then Intel came up with USB and gave it 
away for free.  So, should Apple have given away Firewire?  It's hard 
to encourage innovation with that model (lose money on every unit but 
make it up in volume?).  Then Apple other-cheeked and 
embraced/kickstarted USB with the iMac.

>   (Aside: Remember IBM MCA?  You'd think Apple would learn from 
> history.)

MCA failed because it wasn't backwards-compatible with ISA and EISA 
was, which was good enough to hold us over on the high-end (and VLB on 
the low end) over until PCI/Pentium shipped.

-Bill
-----
Bill McGonigle, Owner           Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Computing, LLC              Home: 603.448.1668
bill at bfccomputing.com           Mobile: 603.252.2606
http://www.bfccomputing.com/    Pager: 603.442.1833
Jabber: flowerpt at gmail.com      Text: bill+text at bfccomputing.com
Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/